Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 03:05:55 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Better "hash_packet6" Message-ID: <20061206030555.A56981@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20061206105642.GB72189@walton.maths.tcd.ie>; from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie on Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:56:42AM %2B0000 References: <200612052010.36789.max@love2party.net> <20061205161744.A48319@xorpc.icir.org> <200612060451.58473.max@love2party.net> <20061206105642.GB72189@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:56:42AM +0000, David Malone wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:51:51AM +0100, Max Laier wrote: > > I tried the reference machines (see hacked up attachment): > > 78x ia64 > > 40x amd64 > > 60x p3 > > 16x p4 > > > I don't have my Soekris set up, so if somebody could give it a try. > > On my 4.11 Soekris 4501 box, the test shows about 70x for gcc -O2 > and 40x for gcc -O. As these are worst-case figures, it would be > interesting to see how CPU usage is impacted for forwarding high > packet rates. My feeling is that this difference would be lost in the top forwarding performance of a soekris is around 30-35kpps if i remember well - this translates in around 30us/packet all included. as you see from the absolute numbers in my other posting, the overhead is very significant. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061206030555.A56981>